COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 73973 ACCELERATED DOCKET STEPHANIE SWARTS : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-appellant : : AND vs. : : OPINION IRWIN HARPER : : PER CURIAM Defendant-appellee : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : AUGUST 27, 1998 OF DECISION : : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-322774 : JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: GREGORY S. SCOTT, ESQ. Lowe, Eklund, Wakefield 1660 West Second Street 610 Skylight Office Tower Cleveland, OH 44114-1454 For defendant-appellee: STEPHEN F. DOBSCHA, ESQ. JOHN T. MCLANDRICH, ESQ. MAZANEC RASKIN & RYDER 100 Franklin's Row 34305 Solon Road Cleveland, OH 44139 PER CURIAM: This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc. R. 25, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral -2- arguments of counsel. Plaintiff-letter carrier Stephanie Swarts brought this negligence action against defendant-homeowner Irvin Harper alleging she suffered injuries when she slipped and fell on an unnatural accumulation of ice that formed on a walkway leading up to his house. Plaintiff claimed that heat loss from the roof caused snow to melt and form icicles which, when thawed, dripped water onto the walkway. She maintained the melted ice pooled because the walkway was graded so that water would not drain properly. She believed that some of this water refroze on the ground, only to be covered by drifting snow. The court granted summary judgment to defendant and the sole assignment of error contests that judgment. The assigned error is overruled on authority of Bailey v. St. Vincent DePaul Church (May 8, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71629, unreported. In Bailey, icicles had formed on the roof of a church. When those icicles thawed, dripped onto the ground and refroze, we had to consider whether they created a condition substantially more dangerous than Bailey should have reasonably anticipated from her knowledge of weather conditions prevailing in the area. Because Bailey admitted having seen similar icicles form on the church in the past, we held that this admission of prior knowledge meant that the icicles were not a substantially dangerous condition that she could not anticipate. Id., unreported at 6. Plaintiff admitted seeing the icicles on the day she fell. In fact, she admitted having seen icicles formed on defendant's house well in the past, saying, they were always there in the winter. -3- She conceded that icicles would melt and refreeze under certain weather conditions. As a letter carrier, she often had occasion to walk in poor weather conditions and she acknowledged that ice could be covered by drifting snow. She described the weather conditions on the day of her fall as certain areas were icy and snowy and certain areas were clear. Plaintiff admitted it would not surprise her to find snow and ice on a person's walkway or driveway. Because a good deal of snow had fallen in previous days, plaintiff agreed she had been on notice that at any given place on her route, she might find ice, snow and slippery conditions. As in Bailey, we find this testimony showed plaintiff knew the icicles were not a substantially dangerous condition that she could not anticipate. Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. -4- TIMOTHY E. MCMONAGLE, PRESIDING JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .